P.N. BHAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 07.07.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No. 3155/2002. The petitioner joined as Director and Vice Chancellor of IVRI, Izatnagar, UP on 01.05.1984 initially for a five-year term. This was extended by another five years by an order dated 08.11.1988. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 17.05.1990 and a show cause notice was issued to him on 27.06.1990 comprising of 97 allegations relating to the period 1984-1989. The petitioner submitted a reply. However, a charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 22.12.1993 containing 13 articles of charge. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer was appointed and the inquiry proceedings were conducted. This culminated in the Inquiry Officer's report of 31.07.1997 wherein the Inquiry Officer held that none of the 13 articles of charge were proved. On 31.10.1997 the petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The disciplinary proceedings continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972.

(2.) After four years, that is, on 24.08.2001 the disciplinary authority issued a disagreement note with respect to Articles 4, 5 (partly) and 7 of the charges. The disagreement note as well as a copy of the Inquiry Officer's Report were supplied to the petitioner for his reply. After all that was over, the disciplinary authority, by virtue of the order dated 19.09.2002, imposed a penalty of 25% cut in pension. The petitioner was aggrieved by that order passed by the disciplinary authority and therefore he filed an application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 being O.A. No. 3155/2002 which was dismissed by virtue of the impugned order dated 07.07.2008. The petitioner is before us being aggrieved by that order.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner raised two contentions before us. His first and primary contention was that the disciplinary proceedings were continued under Rule 9 of the CCS (Pension) Rules 1972 and that a cut in pension could only be imposed on the petitioner if there was a finding of grave misconduct or negligence by the disciplinary authority. Since there was no such finding of grave misconduct or negligence in the disciplinary authority's order, there could not have been any penalty imposing a cut in pension. For this proposition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of D.V. Kapoor v. Union of India & Ors, 1990 4 SCC 314. He also placed reliance on a decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. T.P. Venugopal, 2008 148 DLT 433 (DB).